Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement of an unpaid penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s enforcement of a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says he did not receive the required statutory notices and could not therefore make a witness statement/statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. He also claims the information relied on by the Council and its enforcement agents (bailiffs) did not contain the required information or a court seal and the enforcement action was therefore unlawful.
2. Mr X raises further concerns about the bailiffs’ conduct during their visit to his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. It is not for us to determine the lawfulness of the Council’s enforcement action; only the courts can reach a view on this point. We must look at the Council’s processes and I have seen no evidence to show it failed to follow them in this case.
10. Mr X says he did not receive the ‘order for recovery’ but the Council has provided a copy of this document and this is correctly addressed and clearly sets out the date by which Mr X must pay or face further action. While I have no reason to question the fact Mr X did not receive this document I cannot, on balance, say this was the result of any fault by the Council. In any event, Mr X retains the option to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration if any of the statutory grounds apply.
11. Because Mr X did not pay the PCN the Council applied to the TEC to register the unpaid PCN as a debt and the TEC authorised the Council’s enforcement action in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 75. I appreciate Mr X is not satisfied with the documentation provided to him by the Council and its bailiffs but they could only show Mr X what they received from the TEC. If Mr X is concerned this was not sufficient or suitable he should take the matter up with the TEC directly.
12. Mr X is also concerned about the Council’s bailiffs’ handling of the case but I have seen nothing in Mr X’s complaints about this issue to warrant investigation. The bailiffs were entitled to visit Mr X’s property and to clamp and remove his vehicle when he did not pay the amount owed and confirmed by the TEC. Mr X has since paid the full amount and the bailiffs have returned the car to him. He claims the bailiffs damaged his car but we cannot determine whether the Council is liable for the cost of any repairs; if Mr X wishes to pursue this point it would be reasonable for him to make a claim against the Council at court.
13. Mr X’s complaint about the bailiffs also deals with points of conduct, which in the circumstances are more appropriate for consideration by the Enforcement Conduct Board or the courts as part of an application to challenge their fitness to practice. Mr X says he wants the bailiffs should be sanctioned and subject to regulatory scrutiny, but we have no powers to sanction either the bailiffs or the Council and we are not a regulator.
14. We look at maladministration and injustice and I have not seen enough evidence to show the bailiffs’ conduct amounted to fault, or that it caused significant injustice over and above that which you would normally expect from this type of enforcement action. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman